Turn Time

[Capper Al]

Turn Time is good for me to guess at form of cheaper horses, but does anyone here have another use for it?

[DRIVEWAY]

Couple solid TT(wide comments) with Jockey change for value opportunities

[Tom]

I like to see my closers begin their moves in the second fraction rather than wait until the stretch. I also use it to separate the front runners. Friday, that horse Pandy talked about at KEE in the 8th was deficient in F1, but he was outstanding in TT, so what looked like a bad break and a rush up really was how he runs.
His BRIS numbers for E1 and E2 were 100 114, so his TT was +14. Work All Week had a 107 - 115, +8 TT.

Two ratings I use TT in are BRIS LP + TT for turf races, and TT + E2 to look at early and pressers. That is an old Sartin Contender Factor.

[upthecreek]

Turn Time is good for me to guess at form of cheaper horses, but does anyone here have another use for it?
Here's a link to a discussion and a neat little program:
http://www.thorotech.com/freestuff/turntime.html

[Capper Al]

I like to see my closers begin their moves in the second fraction rather than wait until the stretch. I also use it to separate the front runners. Friday, that horse Pandy talked about at KEE in the 8th was deficient in F1, but he was outstanding in TT, so what looked like a bad break and a rush up really was how he runs.
His BRIS numbers for E1 and E2 were 100 114, so his TT was +14. Work All Week had a 107 - 115, +8 TT.

Two ratings I use TT in are BRIS LP + TT for turf races, and TT + E2 to look at early and pressers. That is an old Sartin Contender Factor.

Thanks Tom. These are the things that I'm trying to remember. Did Scott use second call(E2) + TT for his ability time?

[Capper Al]

Here's a link to a discussion and a neat little program:
http://www.thorotech.com/freestuff/turntime.html

That pretty much points to the conflicting camps, FPS vs Pace Pars. Right now I'm leaning towards Pace Pars because BRIS makes it so easy, E2 - E1. And my default is for pars unless proven otherwise. To be fair, I do use FPS to build an alternate speed figure which BRIS has beaten up in reviewing of a few hundred races.

Thanks

[Tom]

AL, I don't remember - I think it was that or close to it.....I'll have to look that up.

[whodoyoulike]

That pretty much points to the conflicting camps, FPS vs Pace Pars. Right now I'm leaning towards Pace Pars because BRIS makes it so easy, E2 - E1. And my default is for pars unless proven otherwise. To be fair, I do use FPS to build an alternate speed figure which BRIS has beaten up in reviewing of a few hundred races.

Thanks

This is always a good idea to develop an alternative to verify a figure has validity since you're creating as an individual you need a way to ensure your method is valid.

[Cratos]

This is always a good idea to develop an alternative to verify a figure has validity since you're creating as an individual you need a way to ensure your method is valid.
I am confused by your post; what are validating or are your verifying?

[whodoyoulike]

I am confused by your post; what are validating or are your verifying?

That pretty much points to the conflicting camps, FPS vs Pace Pars. Right now I'm leaning towards Pace Pars because BRIS makes it so easy, E2 - E1. And my default is for pars unless proven otherwise. To be fair, I do use FPS to build an alternate speed figure which BRIS has beaten up in reviewing of a few hundred races.

Thanks

I was responding that it was a good idea to have an alternative to using Pace Pars by using FPS to build an alternate speed figure. And, if the results provide similar results it would lend credence that both are valid. I always try to double check my work as I go along.

[ldiatone]

Thanks Tom. These are the things that I'm trying to remember. Did Scott use second call(E2) + TT for his ability time?
dick mitchell AT

[Cratos]

I was responding that it was a good idea to have an alternative to using Pace Pars by using FPS to build an alternate speed figure. And, if the results provide similar results it would lend credence that both are valid. I always try to double check my work as I go along.
OK I understand; thanks for the clarification

[Capper Al]

dick mitchell AT

Thanks

[Capper Al]

I was responding that it was a good idea to have an alternative to using Pace Pars by using FPS to build an alternate speed figure. And, if the results provide similar results it would lend credence that both are valid. I always try to double check my work as I go along.

I guess that's why I keep them around.

[Racey]

Always find TT in interesting and profitable angle.

[Racey]

is it TT + E2 in brisnet ?? for the turf.

[Capper Al]

is it TT + E2 in brisnet ?? for the turf.

Well the turn time is E2 - E1. Adding E2 for sprints and LP for routes depends on your interpretation of how to use TT. Some people just consider it as a stand alone fraction being considered with the other fractions.

[Tom]

For the ability time, I remember what I sued to do.
Add TT + E2.

E1 - 100
E2 - 105
TT = +5
Ability = TT+E2 = 5+105 = 110

[Capper Al]

For the ability time, I remember what I sued to do.
Add TT + E2.

E1 - 100
E2 - 105
TT = +5
Ability = TT+E2 = 5+105 = 110

But you brought up an interesting point early that for turf you used TT + LP. Isn't this a form of ability too? Maybe not officially defined by any author.

[raybo]

For the ability time, I remember what I sued to do.
Add TT + E2.

E1 - 100
E2 - 105
TT = +5
Ability = TT+E2 = 5+105 = 110

That's how I used to calculate the 2nd fraction pace number (turn time pace figure).

E1 fig - 100
E2 fig - 105
TT fig = 105-100=5, 5 + 105= 110

In other words for the horse to have received a 105 from start to 2nd call, after having run only 100 from start to 1st call, it must have run a 110 in the 2nd fraction.

[Tom]

But you brought up an interesting point early that for turf you used TT + LP. Isn't this a form of ability too? Maybe not officially defined by any author.

Yes. TT+E2 is a presser rating - up close and moves on the leaders.
TT=LP is a variation of Sartin's Factor W. EP+SP, which is basically EP+EP+F3, doubling up on the early segment to ensure the horse ins not back in the boon docks. I doubled up on the TT because that is the key fraction for the closers to begin to catch up.

[Racey]

not sure what you meant doubled up?

Thanks

[Capper Al]

That's how I used to calculate the 2nd fraction pace number (turn time pace figure).

E1 fig - 100
E2 fig - 105
TT fig = 105-100=5, 5 + 105= 110

In other words for the horse to have received a 105 from start to 2nd call, after having run only 100 from start to 1st call, it must have run a 110 in the 2nd fraction.

good way to look at it.

[Capper Al]

Yes. TT+E2 is a presser rating - up close and moves on the leaders.
TT=LP is a variation of Sartin's Factor W. EP+SP, which is basically EP+EP+F3, doubling up on the early segment to ensure the horse ins not back in the boon docks. I doubled up on the TT because that is the key fraction for the closers to begin to catch up.

I'm not following. TT = LP either. Also, EP is early pace or another way of saying E1? SP was sustained pace last time I saw it. Sartin had a way of making his own vocabulary.

[raybo]

good way to look at it.

I now use velocities instead of pace figs, so I get velocities for FR1, FR2, and FR3, rather than having to backpedal to get the 2nd fraction using the E1 and E2 pace figs. FR2 is of course the TT, 1st call to 2nd call.

One can also calculate the 2nd call to stretch call fig or velocity, and the stretch call to finish call fig or velocity, the other two "hidden" fractions.

[raybo]

I'm not following. TT = LP either. Also, EP is early pace or another way of saying E1? SP was sustained pace last time I saw it. Sartin had a way of making his own vocabulary.

"EP" is the velocity from the start to the 2nd call. "SP" a composite velocity calculated by (EP+FR3)/2. Don't know what he meant by "TT=LP". "TT" is turn time (1st call to 2nd call) and "LP" is the Bris acronym for "late pace" (2nd call to finish call).

[Racey]

to Tom :confused: checking in to clear up TT= LP

[Tom]

Typoe - should say TT+LP....forgot to shift.

So,

E1...100
E2...105
TT.....+5
LP.....94

so, I get 99.

[Capper Al]

I now use velocities instead of pace figs, so I get velocities for FR1, FR2, and FR3, rather than having to backpedal to get the 2nd fraction using the E1 and E2 pace figs. FR2 is of course the TT, 1st call to 2nd call.

One can also calculate the 2nd call to stretch call fig or velocity, and the stretch call to finish call fig or velocity, the other two "hidden" fractions.

These are in feet per second from BRIS? Doesn't fps lose sight of par for E1 and E2?

[raybo]

These are in feet per second from BRIS? Doesn't fps lose sight of par for E1 and E2?

FR1, FR2, FR3 simply refer to the 3 major fractional segments of races (commonly used labels in Sartin/Brohammer velocities calculations, but can be used for figs too, they are just race segment labels), start to 1st call, 1st call to 2nd call, and 2nd call to finish. E1 and E2 are Bris pace "figures", start to 1st call, and start to 2nd call (Brisnet does not give you the "TT", which must be calculated by the user via E2 minus E1 (which can then be used as it is , the difference, or added back into E2 to get the pace figure for the 2nd fractional segment in isolation)). "TT" can be velocities or figures depending on what measurement units you're using to calculate it. Brisnet pace pars, of course, are on the same scale and the same unit of measurement as the Brisnet pace figures.

"TT" is important because it allows you to create composite velocities or figures that require the measurement of the 1st call to 2nd call segment in isolation. If you don't calculate "TT" then you don't know what that 2nd fraction is, so you can't use it for evaluations/comparisons, or in additional calculations/formulas.

One of the main reasons I switched from pace figures to velocities several years ago (other than the fact that the Brisnet pace figures need to be verified as to accuracy just like their speed figures), is that I can calculate all 3 of the "hidden" fractions (1st call to 2nd call, 2nd call to stretch call, and stretch call to finish). You can't do that using pace figures.

[Capper Al]

Okay Raybo, but with the fractions we lose a comparison to par values. My homemade fps speed figures aren't as good as BRIS speed figures. I'm guessing that the fps fractions won't be as good as the BRIS pace figures.

[raybo]

Okay Raybo, but with the fractions we lose a comparison to par values. My homemade fps speed figures aren't as good as BRIS speed figures. I'm guessing that the fps fractions won't be as good as the BRIS pace figures.

Well, if you think that a beaten length is worth the same amount of time, regardless of the speed the horses are traveling, then keep using the Brisnet pace figures. Do you even know if Brisnet incorporates the track variant in their pace figures, and if so, how?

I used Brisnet pace and speed figures for quite a while, but found that they were, at best, inconsistent, static, and unfairly biased towards early speed. After switching to fps velocities, and refining them, they are far more consistent and accurate than Bris figures. The only figures I would even consider using, are CJ's, if they were available in a comma delimited format, with the Brisnet single file 1435 field mapping.

The only use of the Brisnet pars, for me, would be if they were available for every race in the past performances, which they aren't. All you have are the pars for today's race, which doesn't help you compare horses's races from the past.

[Robert Fischer]

the best thing about 'Turn Time' is the alliteration.

[raybo]

LOL - funny. The best thing about TT is that it tells you what the horse did during the 2nd fraction, in isolation. You can see the 1st fraction but unless you calculate the 2nd fraction you can't accurately assess the horse's running style versus it's early speed/velocity, or how it generally negotiates turns at different tracks with different turn radii and configuration.

[Tom]

Ray, the SR for the last 10 races is there, but not the pace pars. However, the pace pars are fixed to the SR, by sprint or route. You could calculate it from the SR par.

1167-1176 BRIS Speed Par for class level of Last 10 races

[Capper Al]

My understanding of the BRIS pace rating is that they know what on average is expected at a certain track for the E1, E2, and LP. So they set the par to a number (maybe 100) and add or subtract from the par figure (100?) accordingly. If you use fractions then you must have average par times charted for the each track. It's just easier to let BRIS do all the work.

[raybo]

Ray, the SR for the last 10 races is there, but not the pace pars. However, the pace pars are fixed to the SR, by sprint or route. You could calculate it from the SR par.

1167-1176 BRIS Speed Par for class level of Last 10 races

I quit using Brisnet files a while back. Did they just recently add the speed pars for the last 10? They are not listed in the upgrades/additions at the top of the mapping. If the pace pars are tied to the speed rating then they aren't really pars. Pace pars should be averages of actual pace ratings, not something calculated from the speed par. That just further cements my belief that Brisnet figures are not as good as they should be, and that the only pace or speed figures I would ever use would be CJ's.

[raybo]

If you use fractions then you must have average par times charted for the each track. It's just easier to let BRIS do all the work.

That is true, IF one uses pace pars, which I don't. I have no need to know what a certain class of race or a certain speed figure par derivative should produce for pace pars, I only care what the individual horses in the field have demonstrated that they can run, or could possibly run based on previous races. Pars and individual fields are not related, and never will be, we have to deal with actual fields, not what some guy at Brisnet says is par for that race. Pace is highly dependent on running style and matchups, so each horse has there own pace abilities dependent on the capabilities and pace dynamics of the individual field they face, not the pars.

[Capper Al]

Ray,

If I understand BRIS that guy isn't doing much of anything. He's finding the average pace at track A to the first call to be 22 seconds and the average pace at track B to be 21 to the first call. So if a horse runs a 23 seconds at track A and another runs a 23 at track B, they will have different paces:

Track A: 100(or another constant)
- 23(horse's time to 1C)
+ 22 (track average 22 for 1C)
Pace = 100 - 23 + 22 or 99
Track B: 100(or another constant)
- 23(horse's time to 1C)
+ 21 (track average 22 for 1C)
Pace = 100 - 23 + 21 or 98
Both ran to the first call in 23 seconds, but the pace at track A is better.

Presumably BRIS keeps track of average time for the calls at most North American tracks. If you use fractions, you'll have to keep charts of average time yourself. This is a lot of work to get to the same end result.

[whodoyoulike]

Ray,

If I understand BRIS that guy isn't doing much of anything. He's finding the average pace at track A to the first call to be 22 seconds and the average pace at track B to be 21 to the first call. So if a horse runs a 23 seconds at track A and another runs a 23 at track B, they will have different paces:...


How do you know the BRIS guy is finding the first call is 22 and 23 seconds respectively for the two tracks from BRIS pp's?

Is it noted anywhere?

[Capper Al]

How do you know the BRIS guy is finding the first call is 22 and 23 seconds respectively for the two tracks from BRIS pp's?

Is it noted anywhere?

You're right. I don't know. But BRIS is setting a par for each call and each track that they carry. They also are using a fixed point scale where one length equals 2 pace points. So this is a linear movement. Without officially knowing, it looks like the old parallel charts of the era before Beyer figures and the modern day variants.

[whodoyoulike]

You're right. I don't know. But BRIS is setting a par for each call and each track that they carry. They also are using a fixed point scale where one length equals 2 pace points. So this is a linear movement. Without officially knowing, it looks like the old parallel charts of the era before Beyer figures and the modern day variants.

Interesting to know. See, I guess I disagree that Pace "movement" is linear.

But, I could be wrong or our concepts of linearity just differ in definition.

Are you saying that BRIS is saying somewhere that the par at a specific track is 22 seconds or is that your estimate?

You should keep paying attention to Raybo because I actually understand what he's been saying.

[Cratos]

Interesting to know. See, I guess I disagree that Pace "movement" is linear.

But, I could be wrong or our concepts of linearity just differ in definition.

Are you saying that BRIS is saying somewhere that the par at a specific track is 22 seconds or is that your estimate?

You should keep paying attention to Raybo because I actually understand what he's been saying.
You are correct, "pace" (the rate of motion) is not linear.

[Capper Al]

I was talking about BRIS' formula. Linear is y = mx + b. BRIS' increments 2 points for every length. And that's fine if you like fractions. You're in good company. All I'm saying is if I did fractions, I would need pars for each call at each track. BRIS does this work for you.

[Cratos]

I was talking about BRIS' formula. Linear is y = mx + b. BRIS' increments 2 points for every length. And that's fine if you like fractions. You're in good company. All I'm saying is if I did fractions, I would need pars for each call at each track. BRIS does this work for you.
One of the very big problems in thoroughbred racing when it comes to handicapping is these concocted formulas based on skimpy empirical evidence and an even less understanding of science.

I am not suggesting that you have to be a mathematician or physicist to enjoy and have fun at the racetrack.

However when you begin to become involved at the upper end of the wagering spectrum you are going to need a lot more than just guessing.

This game is very hard and it takes the right "tools" with a good understanding followed by sound decision-making to be a consistent winner.

[Capper Al]

One of the very big problems in thoroughbred racing when it comes to handicapping is these concocted formulas based on skimpy empirical evidence and an even less understanding of science.

I am not suggesting that you have to be a mathematician or physicist to enjoy and have fun at the racetrack.

However when you begin to become involved at the upper end of the wagering spectrum you are going to need a lot more than just guessing.

This game is very hard and it takes the right "tools" with a good understanding followed by sound decision-making to be a consistent winner.

And you sound so polite when you make your digs and not too bright also. You assume that you're above us all without even knowing where we are at with the game. That sounds like guessing to me. Better not bet that way.

[Tom]

And you sound so polite when you make your digs and not too bright also. You assume that you're above us all without even knowing where we are at with the game. That sounds like guessing to me. Better not bet that way.

Sharp post.

[Cratos]

And you sound so polite when you make your digs and not too bright also. You assume that you're above us all without even knowing where we are at with the game. That sounds like guessing to me. Better not bet that way.
First of all I am not putting myself above the so-called "us" you referred too.

I comment on threads which has topics of interest to me.

Maybe I am not to bright, but the science and math that I know and understand is not rhetorical.

Therefore argue or debate your point with salient facts; you will get no sympathy from me for not knowing.

[no breathalyzer]

I don't understand this thread, why do i need TT can't i just click over to trakus and get the # in seconds?

[Capper Al]

I don't understand this thread, why do i need TT can't i just click over to trakus and get the # in seconds?

If you get it in seconds then you are using a variation of feet per second (FPS) analysis which is fine and used by many. I just happen to prefer playing with pars and prefer BRIS' pace numbers. A few posters missed this point for some reason.

[Tom]

I don't understand this thread, why do i need TT can't i just click over to trakus and get the # in seconds?

It is raw time at Trakus.
And Trakus represents very few tracks.

So Al, are you going to sign for advanced math at night school? :D

[Capper Al]

It is raw time at Trakus.
And Trakus represents very few tracks.

So Al, are you going to sign for advanced math at night school? :D

Absolutely, I've always wanted to take more math classes.

[completebill]

I ran his version of turn time, which is an improved version over just Fr2. It measures from 1st call to 1/8 pole. Classic "Turn Time" actually, at some distances, doesn't include the turn! This was run through the HTR "Robot", with a database of every N. American race run in last365 days. It's testing the factor paired with, literally, 100's of other factors, many familiar to you, but many proprietary to HTR. Three were profitable, while two broke even.

"Razor" is a workout rating, KAT is a proprietary improvement rating,
Sorted by Win ROI

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AvgW Bomb High I.V. P/L 10/12/2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5f Gate Wk 00107 0029 27% 43% 52% 1.14 1.11 0.94 $8.4 0001 $36 2.17 +00029
2Razor 00328 0096 29% 42% 59% 1.07 0.83 0.87 $7.3 0003 $55 2.26 +00048
Dbl Razor 00328 0096 29% 42% 59% 1.07 0.83 0.87 $7.3 0003 $55 2.26 +00048
KAT 8 01090 0356 33% 50% 63% 1.00 0.92 0.90 $6.1 0011 $40 2.46 -00006
Bridesmaid 00912 0259 28% 49% 64% 1.00 0.94 0.90 $7.0 0009 $63 2.24 -00008

[completebill]

Similarly, here's the same test with Classic turn time (Fr2) paired against 100's of other factors, all from the HTR program. Very similar results to the test I posted using "Improved" turn time--1st call to 1/8 pole---. Slightly different paired factors here, but only 3 positive, and two break-even.

Sorted by Win ROI

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AvgW Bomb High I.V. P/L 10/12/2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5f Gate Wk 00109 0035 32% 46% 56% 1.33 1.07 0.92 $8.3 0001 $37 2.50 +00073
Claim-Back 00120 0029 24% 44% 57% 1.15 1.12 1.03 $9.5 0003 $50 1.80 +00035
Fr1 Domina 00570 0198 35% 55% 70% 1.06 0.99 0.97 $6.1 0003 $52 2.40 +00069
1Razor 01664 0405 24% 40% 53% 1.00 0.92 0.88 $8.2 0023 $63 1.90 -00006
Lone Razor 00938 0267 28% 44% 56% 1.00 0.94 0.88 $7.0 0010 $56 2.15 -00006

[Cratos]

Absolutely, I've always wanted to take more math classes.
Good, you can take Course 18: Mathematics at MIT

[Capper Al]

Bill,

I take it that your last two post are qualifying what you posted earlier.

[Tom]

Similarly, here's the same test with Classic turn time (Fr2) paired against 100's of other factors, all from the HTR program. Very similar results to the test I posted using "Improved" turn time--1st call to 1/8 pole---. Slightly different paired factors here, but only 3 positive, and two break-even.

Sorted by Win ROI

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Plays Wins Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AvgW Bomb High I.V. P/L 10/12/2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5f Gate Wk 00109 0035 32% 46% 56% 1.33 1.07 0.92 $8.3 0001 $37 2.50 +00073
Claim-Back 00120 0029 24% 44% 57% 1.15 1.12 1.03 $9.5 0003 $50 1.80 +00035
Fr1 Domina 00570 0198 35% 55% 70% 1.06 0.99 0.97 $6.1 0003 $52 2.40 +00069
1Razor 01664 0405 24% 40% 53% 1.00 0.92 0.88 $8.2 0023 $63 1.90 -00006
Lone Razor 00938 0267 28% 44% 56% 1.00 0.94 0.88 $7.0 0010 $56 2.15 -00006

But that is not at all how I use TT - I use it as a part of pace analysis, nothing else. I find it very useful.

[raybo]

But that is not at all how I use TT - I use it as a part of pace analysis, nothing else. I find it very useful.

Me too. It's just another fractional segment.

[completebill]

Bill,

I take it that your last two post are qualifying what you posted earlier.


Yes--I did find a VERY few situations in which turn-time might be a profitable factor, in conjunction with another factor, or factors. It's such a minor exception, though that, at least relatively speaking, it's not a useful factor (IMHO).

[Capper Al]

Yes--I did find a VERY few situations in which turn-time might be a profitable factor, in conjunction with another factor, or factors. It's such a minor exception, though that, at least relatively speaking, it's not a useful factor (IMHO).

Frankly, I'm only planning to study it and not use it. There are a lot of factors that get computed and never used in my app. It might get used in ability time later. But for now, I'm not planning to use it.